Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,  (Read 290167 times)

#### x_name41

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 250
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #120 on: July 18, 2014, 10:06:09 PM »
not, schemes so far are wrong, lo the correct scheme

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #121 on: July 19, 2014, 01:21:59 AM »
Do you see any other chips that might be a bit cheaper that would do the job? I was thinking of using an Arduino controller to control the switching and optimize it experimentally.

An arduino would work perfectly and certainly cuts down on the number of discrete IC's used to time and trigger everything. But I wouldn't expect huge savings, the claimed COP of 50 is a bunch of hooie if you ask me.

Won't a DC analogy give a similar result to one half cycle of AC ? We can generate sinusoidal AC if we want to and plenty of
(out of phase power) as well but that's just another loss. Why can't we do it with DC ?

Sure, it will work the same. But the problem is that charge efficiency is 50% max, just the same as it is with AC. So that means your battery WILL DEPLETE! This is due to a conservative charge pump LOSING 50% of its charge during the parallel to series transformation, while energy remains constant.

The calcs below show that the energy used after the first cycle is 100 micro joules for both charging and discharging of the capacitor. Power is dependent upon the time constant and is higher for the series circuit as tau is smaller. At any rate, you RETURN only 50% of the charge that you took from the battery. That is you take 100 micro coulombs to charge in parallel (after the first charge cycle) and return 50 micro coulombs during each series discharge.

What this does mean is that the run time can be up to 50 percent longer than it would have otherwise (if using NiCd, as it has good pulse charge/discharge characteristics unlike lead acid). Power to the load, however, is reduced because only the delta in electric potential is used to move current around.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 05:21:36 AM by G4RR3ττ »

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #122 on: July 19, 2014, 03:01:36 AM »
not, schemes so far are wrong, lo the correct scheme
Oh, don't start. The circuit you have shown is not more efficient at producing heat than a straight wire connection from the heating element to the battery.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13958
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #123 on: July 19, 2014, 03:07:16 AM »
@Garret: excellent analysis....and @ everybody else: that is why, with a cap charge-discharge system, you have to have the capacitor charging energy coming from somewhere else other than the battery you are charging with the resulting energy. This is not a viable closed-loop idea because of the losses that are inescapable.
But... you set up your electrosmog harvesters or your atmospheric antennae or your Tesla receivers or your xbox wifi, whatever, which can charge the capacitor bank in series to a relatively high voltage. Then you discharge this energy with caps in parallel at a lower voltage, to charge your battery or run your appliance. The charging can take place over longer time periods than the use of the energy, so you wind up ahead. Not overunity but in a sense "free energy" which otherwise is just wasted.

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #124 on: July 19, 2014, 05:47:50 AM »
Now if you don't use a conservative capacitor, where energy isn't kept constant, you can have more useful effects. As for "non-conservative" capacitor think dielectric absorption where charges are freely generated by the dielectric due to strain memory, or a "dead" NiCd battery able to keep producing small pulses of current when given small rest periods between discharges. Finally you have plasma capacitors where conservation laws may not be fully applicable. The basic concept of a plasma capacitor uses a small tubular CLF lamp wrapped in tinfoil and it's capacitance, once turned on, jumps up enormously. I haven't tested this last circuit yet, but I think it has promise. There is also the effect of light on ionizing gases, so charges may be freely generated by this circuit due to ambient light; I actually built a small photo detector out of an NE2 to transmit sound over laser light using this principle and it worked fabulously, very non-directional (unlike diode detectors) and surprising linearity.

#### listener191

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 253
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #125 on: July 19, 2014, 10:46:24 AM »
All,

Re Jasons simulation... what if you take the series connected parallel charged caps and then swap the + & - ,so when discharged into the 2nd quadrant, the voltage difference is 3 x peak sine. This may equalize the charge and discharge current amplitudes.

For that matter is there any visual confirmation that the caps are  placed in series when charged? By using the method above if the caps are charged in parallel and stay in parallel  there still would be a difference of 2 x peak sine but charge would not be halved.

Barry

#### forest

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4070
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #126 on: July 19, 2014, 11:02:47 AM »
@Garret: excellent analysis....and @ everybody else: that is why, with a cap charge-discharge system, you have to have the capacitor charging energy coming from somewhere else other than the battery you are charging with the resulting energy. This is not a viable closed-loop idea because of the losses that are inescapable.
But... you set up your electrosmog harvesters or your atmospheric antennae or your Tesla receivers or your xbox wifi, whatever, which can charge the capacitor bank in series to a relatively high voltage. Then you discharge this energy with caps in parallel at a lower voltage, to charge your battery or run your appliance. The charging can take place over longer time periods than the use of the energy, so you wind up ahead. Not overunity but in a sense "free energy" which otherwise is just wasted.

Wow! Accidentally you uncovered the real solution, just remove "[size=78%]The charging can take place over longer time periods" [/size]

#### listener191

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 253
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #127 on: July 19, 2014, 11:45:27 AM »
All,

Apologies for the crude schematic. This scheme is in alignment with slide 41 of the  just released Babcock Murray presentation. This doesnt need the caps to be be series linked for discharge.

Barry

#### G4RR3ττ

• Newbie
• Posts: 33
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #128 on: July 19, 2014, 08:31:56 PM »
Hi Listener191,

That circuit cannot work the way you've shown with the I(t) and V(t) diagrams. The current will actually be in the same direction as before since the interleaved capacitor's potential is in series with the AC source, thus the AC line potential will rise, like two batteries connected in additive series, therefore current doesn't change direction.

Now, if you used a center tap transformer to invert the pulse current, this may actually work, but not as you've shown.

I've redrawn your diagram to show the directions of the currents for charge and discharge, notice the direction of the discharge currents for the interleaved capacitors: they don't cause current reversals.

#### listener191

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 253
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #129 on: July 19, 2014, 08:33:51 PM »
All,

There is a link between both set of caps, so that rules out parallel/series switching. The linked terminals do not appear to have other connections so it would appear that the caps are in series for voltage rating purposes.

Barry

#### listener191

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 253
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #130 on: July 19, 2014, 09:23:35 PM »
Hi G4RR3TT,

Slide 42 of the Bbcock/Murray presentation shows capacitor charged in the positive half sine is discharged in the negative half sine period. The video of the Japanese SERPS demo shows fixed links between the two sets of caps that rule out parallel charging, series discharging.. so what arrangement do you suggest that will deliver equal magnitude charging and discharging current?

Barry

#### listener191

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 253
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #131 on: July 19, 2014, 09:40:32 PM »
Hi G4RR3TT,

Perhaps what I should have said is.. other than a center tapped transformer, what arrangement do you suggest?

A center tapped transformer cannot be ruled out as, the three variants of SERPS that I have seen, all have transformers.

Personally I would like to see the current variants run on a small stand alone generator, as it would be easy to hear if a given load on the generator is lightened, when  the SERPS circuit is switched in.

The absence of line input waveforms from the wall, showing the I & V phase, is disturbing. Not much point of the device if the 1W real draw on the secondary side of the transformer for 50W in the load, is supported by 500VA from the line!

Barry

#### Farmhand

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1583
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #132 on: July 19, 2014, 10:17:37 PM »
Thread is difficult to read due to oversized images, if people paragraph the text it can be read without scrolling sideways.
Nothing will put people off reading a thread like having to scroll sideways for every line of text.

Now my point to the drawing I posted was to see if anyone can determine the net power drawn from the supply and the power
dissipated by the resistor, not how efficient cap charging and discharging is.

If no one can determine the power dissipated by the resistor then how can we even know what will be OU and what won't ?

Seems to me that when the caps are charged through the resistor the energy that charges the capacitor does not heat the
resistor
and on discharge any energy returned to the supply does not heat the resistor either.

So where does the OU come into it ? I say it is in the incorrect measurement of power. To put it simply the power dissipated in
the resistive load cannot charge the capacitors
and the power returned to the supply cannot heat the resistors, the
circuit behavior I think is normal for what it is, the thing that is not normal is the way the power would need to be measured.
I don't think regular measurement methods will show accurate values.

If anyone can determine the powers in the circuit below we might be able to see where the problem lies.

..

#### Farmhand

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1583
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #133 on: July 19, 2014, 10:26:39 PM »
Surely we can agree on those simple points.

1) On the charge phase the power dissipated by the resistors cannot charge the capacitors.

2) On the discharge phase the power dissipated by the resistors cannot be returned to the supply.

If we can not all agree on those two points, we have strange things to discuss.

If anyone disagrees with the two points above please say so and explain why and how it can be different.

..

P.S. Basically these people are claiming that they can draw power from the supply and dissipate almost all of that power in
the light bulbs and then return that same power to the supply.

Our job as experimenters is to determine what is actually happening because what I just described cannot be what is going on.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.

..

#### SeaMonkey

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1292
##### Re: COP 20.00 (2000%) Times, Reactive Power Energy Source Generator,
« Reply #134 on: July 20, 2014, 12:35:56 AM »
Agreed, in the process of "recycling" the electrical
power there must be some "losses" in the Load.

Is the return of some fraction of the power at
critical points in the waveform sufficient to "fool"
the prime mover into thinking that it is working
into a very small load?

What is going on seems to defy common sense.

The proclaimed "COP" is simply an illusion?